The Willis Family: Rape Charges Part 2

[EmmieJ]

I hope no one here ever faces criminal charges of any kind, but if you do, you will want the best and strongest defence possible.  I already know what local defense  attorney I'd call.  It is a prosecutor's job to present a strong and convincing case, the police's job to legally gather the supporting evidence, the jury's job to evaluate the facts and arguments presented and arrive at a verdict.  As a judicial system, it has its flaws, but it's vastly better than relying on the court of public opinion.

[raised in rebellion]

34 minutes ago, Fascinated said:

As a matter of law it CANNOT matter. If a defendant is not proven guilty, how can you justify declaring them as such?  It is why we have trials.  Heaven help us all if we can be found guilty of a crime without sufficient proof. 

But as a matter fact (not law, not opinion), it must matter to an atty's soul? 

Many can be, and are, found guilty without sufficient proof. More often than not it seems like big money and notoriety drive verdicts. Lawyers complain of a broken system, but the system is made up of lawyers...

OJ is the obvious example in justification.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

1 hour ago, Fascinated said:

As a matter of law it CANNOT matter. If a defendant is not proven guilty, how can you justify declaring them as such?  It is why we have trials.  Heaven help us all if we can be found guilty of a crime without sufficient proof. 

This is especially important when you consider that the immediate consequence of a guilty verdict is the loss on the defendant part of some important and constitutionally protected rights. 

When people advocate stripping someone of his freedom, subject the person to a forced medical procedure and suspend even the constitutional right to physical integrity, without bothering with a fair process because they are sure that person is a monster and how can you ever defend a monster, then I start worrying and wondering about who is the monster.

I'd like to underline that a trial where the defence did their best and yet the defendant gets convicted gives power and strong credibility to the victim's story declaring it the proved judicial truth. This can give to everyone involved a new start to find healing.

I also don't understand  the insistence in saying: how can a lawyer help a known guilty criminal be acquitted. If you know that your client is guilty and your knowledge is evidence based (if it's not then how the heck do you know?) surely the prosecution knows it too and it's its job to make sure that the jury too knows it. If then the jury chooses to ignore evidence and says that policemen have a right to kill whenever they feel scared then the problem goes far beyond the justice system. Because the system can be fair only if the society that expresses it is fair. And weakening the right to a defence doesn't make for a fairer society quite the contrary. 

This said I think that attorneys who attack the alleged victims with derogatory statements should lose their license. 

 

[anniebgood]

5 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

Ah, the Day Care scandals and witch hunts of the 1980s and the criticism of forensic interviewing techniques used with (alleged) victims.  There was also the Fells Acres case in MA - and I think the Amiraults were guilty as sin.  Their sentences were not revoked.

In the McMartin case focus your ire on the DA, police and the Children's Institute, Inc., not on Child Protective Services.   The Children's Institute, Inc. was contracted to conduct the interviews, and developed and used the techniques in forensic interviewing that were later found to cause false accusations.  

CPS gets a lot of criticism (and some of it may be valid), but its a bit unfair to accuse it of eagerness for good press when it wasn't involved.  The system is overloaded and underfunded, and stretched to the limit.

To clarify:  the primary purpose of CPS (according to the Statute) is to investigate cases where the abuser is a parent, family member or a person lives in or frequently visits the child's residence.  Depending on the state, CPS *may* have the authority to investigate cases where the perpetrators are teachers/day care workers.  In my state those cases are turned over to LE and are not in CPS jurisdiction.

Sorry to derail.  Back to topic now.

Oh, I blame Ira Reiner and his ego for a lot of it. And the Children's Institute. CPS and The Manhattan Beach police dept's hands were basically tied. MB was still a little town then, very close knit, not like today with McMansions on every corner. It's lost its charm for all but the very rich. The lot my mom's house is on, a very modest 3 bedroom house, is appraised at over 2 million dollars because it sits on the top of a hill and if you squint you can see the ocean. My stepdads trust owns it and she shares ownership with my stepbrother and stepsister. When Mom dies, it goes to them. My stepbrother says he will keep it and rent it out because even a 1100 3BR-1.5 can get up to $4000 a month rent in that location. 

OT

My husband was accused of molesting our step-niece, who we never saw except when we were at my parents house. Her mother is a psychopathic liar and she knew who was messing with the kid, her upstairs neighbors, but she didn't want to upset them because they were her secondary babysitter. He never ever was alone with the kid. Yet the mom got backed into a corner and named my husband. She didn't know that he was a designated reporter, and he almost lost his job because of her hate for him. My kids were called in to talk to CPS, I had to talk to the police and CPS. And nothing was ever proved because there was nothing to prove. After that, she basically left the kid to be raised by elderly parents, and my mom at 91 still has my niece living with her. The mother blew through a quarter of a million dollar inheritance when her dad died, and now cleans pools in Vegas. So I've been through the investigation and I've been on the winning side if you can say that. My niece doesn't remember it at all. But my kids do, I do, and my husband does. 

Sorry to derail it. 

 

[Lurky]

3 hours ago, EmmieJ said:

I hope no one here ever faces criminal charges of any kind, but if you do, you will want the best and strongest defence possible.

If by any chance I was guilty of hurting a child or someone I love was (and I hope this never, ever comes anywhere close to  happening, ever), I'd hope I'd/they'd plead guilty and try to get help, and I'd hope my lawyer would help me with that.  I absolutely hope I/they would never hire the kind of defense who's victim-blame, or hand-wave the whole "it's not that bad" type words, try to get us off on technicalities etc etc

ETA: And while I love FJ thread-drift, a reminder for anyone coming in late: while yeah, some kids are manipulated, and the Satanic Panic case in the 80s were awful, while the alleged victim in the Willis case was under 13 at the time, they are not any more, so there's no chance this is one of those "small children coerced/misinterpreted" situations.   (I'm not pointing fingers at anyone thread-drifting, I just think it's important that this isn't lost sight of.)

[raised in rebellion]

6 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

When people advocate stripping someone of his freedom, subject the person to a forced medical procedure and suspend even the constitutional right to physical integrity, without bothering with a fair process because they are sure that person is a monster and how can you ever defend a monster, then I start worrying and wondering about who is the monster.

 

I would argue that fair process is not always a matter of the judicial system. They bottom line is that we should be preventing these crimes against children, as a society. We have to allow people with attractions to minors to come out and seek help BEFORE they commit a crime. They can't be 'fixed' any more than a homosexual can be. They do understand that it is unacceptable.

Once that happens, then you can begin to divide sexual offenders into groups: ppl that had a weak moment, and people who are controlling, rapist fucks and get off on the power. The former will want help to stop the urges.

And if we can help people turn off these urges before they act on them, even better.

We have to understand that rapists are one thing, pedos are another. Right now, they're one in the same under law. 

But, if you're both? And you act on that? I've no love lost. If that makes me an ape or a monster, so be it. I've been called worse. I didn't say they should be executed. I said they should be rendered asexual. I stand by it. I don't care how good your attorney is. I care if you did it. (You, meaning child rapist).

[laPapessaGiovanna]

53 minutes ago, raised in rebellion said:

We have to allow people with attractions to minors to come out and seek help BEFORE they commit a crime. They can't be 'fixed' any more than a homosexual can be. They do understand that it is unacceptable.

Do you really think that the Steven Sitlers of this world will come out seeking medication to block their impulses? I don't. Those who would come out are the ones with a conscience, the ones less likely to offend in the first place and that are already more likely to seek help right now or to be able to keep their impulses under control.

53 minutes ago, raised in rebellion said:

Once that happens, then you can begin to divide sexual offenders into groups: ppl that had a weak moment, and people who are controlling, rapist fucks and get off on the power.The former will want help to stop the urges. And if we can help people turn off these urges before they act on them, even better.

Are you fucking joking? If they have already acted and it is proved, they are all rapists and I don't fucking care if they "had a weak moment"! Bullshit.

53 minutes ago, raised in rebellion said:

We have to understand that rapists are one thing, pedos are another. Right now, they're one in the same under law. 

Where? Not where I live, I can't be sure for the US but at least for the case in point the charge is quite specified as rape of a child, with child meaning a minor between ages 3 to 12.

53 minutes ago, raised in rebellion said:

I didn't say they should be executed. I said they should be rendered asexual. I stand by it. I don't care how good your attorney is. I care if you did it. (You, meaning child rapist).

Are you going to let them have the possibility to go through a trial before forcing them on medication to chemically castrate them? Because if you don't you aren't particularly better than them.

ETA you can have the best attorney but if there's evidence that you raped a child chances are that the jury won't show much pity. The idea that a good attorney can justify or minimize the impact of such a charge backed by evidence in front of a jury seems to stem more from tv series than reality. 

[raised in rebellion]

@laPapessaGiovannaDefending a child molester is gross. Period.

I wasn't implying a weak moment wasn't horrid, just that there is more than one type of perp. Different things drive them, and it's important to understand it, so it's prevented, rather than prosecuted.

If more ppl could speak freely before offending, they might. Instead of Asian sex tours. But there is zero help in the US for a pedophile who hasn't acted. 

And there are many awful outlets for these offenders. Most are not caught. Most victims say nothing, in fear of defense attys. What's your answer to them? Hope they get a good prosecutor. Cos if you can't prove it, it didn't happen?

And I get there are vindictive people that falsely accuse. But that is not the norm. I get the need for defense. But, atty's who take clients they know are guilty, through free will, for money, don't get a pass. They SHOULD have a tough time sleeping.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

2 hours ago, raised in rebellion said:

laPapessaGiovannaDefending a child molester is gross. Period.

Defend in its juridical meaning is rather different from the common usage of the word. If you are a laweyer who defends a child molester in a court of law you don't have (and you shouldn' t have) to be a child molester apologist. If you can't understand the difference, well it's not my fault. 

2 hours ago, raised in rebellion said:

I wasn't implying a weak moment wasn't horrid, just that there is more than one type of perp. Different things drive them, and it's important to understand it, so it's prevented, rather than prosecuted.

Bullshit. Men who are attracted to women don't have to sexually assault them whenever they feel tempted. And when they do they are fucking monsters even if they do it once. If, as you say, people who are attracted to children understand how this is simply unacceptable ever they won't act on their pulsions and they will seek help. Surely we could do better in dealing with them but I've never heard anyone convicted for instincts he hasn't acted upon.

2 hours ago, raised in rebellion said:

And there are many awful outlets for these offenders. Most are not caught. Most victims say nothing, in fear of defense attys. What's your answer to them? Hope they get a good prosecutor.

Yes exactly. As someone who is falsely accuses should hope in a good defence. And as I have already explained derogatory statements who offend and discredit a victim should cost to an attorney his/licence and we should improve procedures and protocols to grant more respect to alleged victims. 

2 hours ago, raised in rebellion said:

Cos if you can't prove it, it didn't happen?

Wrong, this is what society often says and some who have interests in keeping this situation of inequality want you to believe, but in many cases it just means that it wasn't possible to prove it. This is the reason for we should create an environment in which victims feel that the right thing to do is to denounce immediately. Because this is what grants the best outcomes making it possible to gather evidence, because they shouldn't need to fear police's questions, nor fear that the trial that should give them justice and affirm their story as the judicial truth will be a horrid trauma. This is why we should teach children about inappropriate touching, about trust, about trust in their instinct when they feel someone is crossing the boundaries and as parents be attentive and listen to our children.

[Foudeb]

 A good attorney defending a guilty child molester will help them admit their own guilt, if only to make a plea-bargain, and may be the person best placed to do so. A guilty child molester may also have a background that will help the court find an appropriate sentence (history of being abused, never having learnt empathy because of broken childhood, very low IQetc) - making that part of the case is important because if, say, psychological help is part of the sentence, that may well help prevent re-offending. 

What kind of society would we be if we let the accused, who may or may not be guilty, who may or may not be clever enough to understand the judicial process, who has no experience facing a court, face a system of experts without a guide.

And if a crooked attorney smears the victim, what's to prevent them from suing for defamation after the end of the trial.

[Lurky]

1 hour ago, Foudeb said:

And if a crooked attorney smears the victim, what's to prevent them from suing for defamation after the end of the trial.

I hope I'm misunderstanding you, but a) the victim may not have the disposable cash, b. the victim, if they've been through a rape, then a horrible court case, where they're smeared, is likely to think "this is too much", not trust the legal system etc. 

Look at eg the statement from Brock Turner's victim, who had really shitty things said about her by Turner's defense - and this after he'd admitted his crimes to the police when he was caught - and still had this ridiculously small sentence because "it was a mistake" etc.   Or the things Natalie Greenfield is going through, from the current Doug Phillips thread - it's would be just exhausting to live it, let alone turn it into another legal battle.

I dunno, I hope I'm mis-reading you, but it reads like "oh well, if they attorney re-victimises the victim in court, it's fine, because she can just sue him" - and that seems heartless in the extreme.

[AmazonGrace]

Can someone refer me to a case in which anyone sued the opposing side's attorney for defamation for things that were said in court? Just wondering if it ever happens

[Palimpsest]

46 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Can someone refer me to a case in which anyone sued the opposing side's attorney for defamation for things that were said in court? Just wondering if it ever happens

Not a lawyer, but I thought prosecutors, at least, had immunity from that.  People can sue for malicious prosecution though.

People can sue for anything if they can afford it.  And lawsuits can always be dismissed.

 

[Buzzard]

23 hours ago, SweetLaurel said:

Okay - topic.     I'm curious, if anyone knows.    If Toby is sitting in jail with some kind of order that says he can't contact the family - can they contact him legally?  Or does it work both ways?    Thank heavens I don't know about these kinds of things.    What if one of the boys or someone wants to go say 'WTH Dad' or just check on him or something?   Are they allowed? 

The only person the court has jurisdiction over is the defendant.  No one can order a private citizen with no relation to the court to stay away... BUT... the defendant may be prevented from writing/calling back because that would potentially violate the court's order.  Its also possible that the jail will not allow certain people to visit, per the court order.

BUT... the State loves when people do things like that, because those calls/visits are recorded and generally have amazing evidence.

1 hour ago, Palimpsest said:

Not a lawyer, but I thought prosecutors, at least, had immunity from that.  People can sue for malicious prosecution though.

People can sue for anything if they can afford it.  And lawsuits can always be dismissed.

Prosecutors are immune from suit by Sovereign Immunity so long as they are acting within their jobs and within the law.

I've never heard of a victim suing a defendant or their attorney for lying about them during court proceedings.  I've seen quite a few cases where it absolutely should have happened but nothing ever came of it.

[older than allosaurs]

31 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

Prosecutors are immune from suit by Sovereign Immunity so long as they are acting within their jobs and within the law.

I've never heard of a victim suing a defendant or their attorney for lying about them during court proceedings.  I've seen quite a few cases where it absolutely should have happened but nothing ever came of it.

 

Journalism teacher here:

Statements made in U.S. court are privileged, meaning they are not subject to libel or defamation suits. The same goes for statements made by elected representatives during legislative sessions and by candidates as part of political campaigns.

Otherwise, attorneys couldn't do their jobs. If a prosecutor tells the jury the defendant is a pimp based on the evidence she has, and the jury doesn't buy it, or a technicality gets him off, the defendant could turn around and sue. If a snitch lies on the stand to get a better deal for his own case, he could be nailed by the court system for perjury, but the victim of his falsehoods can't sue him for libel.

And while it would be satisfying to sue many of this year's presidential candidates for libel, it would be unlikely to improve our campaign climate in real life. When these accusations are made out loud, we can evaluate them ourselves and judge the candidates' character and reliability accordingly. At least that's the reasoning as I understand it.

Libel law is a balance between the rights of free speech; the virtues of making our arguments, however heated, in public and dueling with words rather than weapons; and the right of a victim of defamation to get some redress for harm done. Different countries draw that line at very different points.

[DaisyD]

I really wish we could put candidates under oath during the election cycle. Then we could get them for perjury. Ah, the perfect world inside my head...

[snarkopolis]

On 9/24/2016 at 1:11 AM, raised in rebellion said:

@snarkopolis Do you truly believe that it doesn't matter if a a person is guilty, if it can't be proven? 

A major difference between attys and the other professions that you mentioned (especially in these types of cases) is that those people aren't justifying/defending heinous crimes at the expense of the victims. At least, that's where I'd have a really hard time of it. 

It definitely takes a special sort of person to be able to healthfully cope with defending pretty bad people. I guess you try to make sure the good outweighs the bad, like all of us. But, it seems a very hard road to me.

Yes. The lynch mob mentality of the public ASSUMES many things. Google Project
Innocence and get a feel for the thousands who EVERYONE KNEW did it and were later found to be innocent. Ask Sam Shepherd or Geronimo Pratt how it feels to be innocent but EVERYONE KNOWS you did it. We get no do overs when we lock people up for decades and then say Oh, my bad. You are innocent. Sorry. And then don't want to compensate them for the life lost.

Why is it so hard to understand my job is to make sure the police and courts play by the rules no matter who the defendant is? To safeguard the rights of those who are at risk?

[calimojo]

Being part of democratic society means that we don't get to pick and choose who deserves the best defense in a legal situation.  Guilt or innocence doesn't figure into this.  By the laws of our land,  WE ALL are entitled to be defended in a court of law.  And just because some crimes are more heinous than others doesn't mean that those who are accused of them don't deserve a robust defense.   Even someone who is admitting to their guilt still gets a defense attorney unless of course they waive that right. 

As private citizens, we can certainly have our own opinion and can feel strongly about guilt or innocence, but we are not to tamper with the process of law. 

 

[ALM7]

On 9/24/2016 at 10:38 PM, raised in rebellion said:

I would argue that fair process is not always a matter of the judicial system. They bottom line is that we should be preventing these crimes against children, as a society. We have to allow people with attractions to minors to come out and seek help BEFORE they commit a crime. They can't be 'fixed' any more than a homosexual can be. They do understand that it is unacceptable.

Once that happens, then you can begin to divide sexual offenders into groups: ppl that had a weak moment, and people who are controlling, rapist fucks and get off on the power. The former will want help to stop the urges.

And if we can help people turn off these urges before they act on them, even better.

We have to understand that rapists are one thing, pedos are another. Right now, they're one in the same under law. 

But, if you're both? And you act on that? I've no love lost. If that makes me an ape or a monster, so be it. I've been called worse. I didn't say they should be executed. I said they should be rendered asexual. I stand by it. I don't care how good your attorney is. I care if you did it. (You, meaning child rapist).

[to preserve the context of post, I won't snip it][my bold above] 

@raised in rebellion, as a rule, I let questionable comments slide. However, your attempt to form an analogy between pedophiles and rapist, with homosexuals (your term), is very offensive, there are no similarities, period. 

If you felt it was necessary to compare what can't be fixed (your words), why not choose psychopathic criminal behavior vs. pedophilia and rape, at least something in the same ball park.  

You know the dreaded cliche, compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges?  Dammit, gays are tired of being called apples, when they're actually oranges. 

 -------------------------------------

On 9/25/2016 at 1:19 AM, raised in rebellion said:

And I get there are vindictive people that falsely accuse. But that is not the norm. I get the need for defense. But, atty's who take clients they know are guilty, through free will, for money, don't get a pass. They SHOULD have a tough time sleeping.

 [snipped/my bold above]

@raised in rebellion, knowledgeable FJ members have extensively addressed the legal process.  It's offensive to be demonized due to ones chosen profession.  It's equally offensive to suggest a legal professional is so lowly they shouldn't be compensated for their service. 

ftr...I always slept like a baby.

 

 

[DaisyD]

If I could like that more than once @ALM7, I would. 

This seems to be a touchy subject for you @raised in rebellion. It may be best to move on from this topic for a little while. Clearly you're not willing to be reasoned with.

[raised in rebellion]

@daisyd681 I do believe you are right. 

I'm sorry for offending anyone's livelihood/calling.

[devoe364]

On 9/25/2016 at 11:11 AM, Buzzard said:

The only person the court has jurisdiction over is the defendant.  No one can order a private citizen with no relation to the court to stay away... BUT... the defendant may be prevented from writing/calling back because that would potentially violate the court's order.  Its also possible that the jail will not allow certain people to visit, per the court order.

BUT... the State loves when people do things like that, because those calls/visits are recorded and generally have amazing evidence.

I snipped this...

Here in Canada, if you are involved in the legal process, whether you are the defendant, a witness or the victim, the judge can put a non-contact order in place. Whomever violates that order is in contempt of court. The police can even put notes on your file saying they ordered you to stay away from the other person and it looks bad for you if you do not. I have one of those on a file with an ex. He likes to dox me from time to time instead. 

[Snarkle Motion]

I think everyone agrees that child molesters deserve punishment. If we had a perfect world where we could automatically know if a person committed a crime then we wouldn't need a trial. But since we can never know for sure, it's important to consider the evidence and make sure all people, even the seemingly most horrendous people, have due process. Unfortunately that means that offenders often get away with what they did and that completely sucks but so does locking up innocent people who are wrongfully accused. While it doesn't happen often, it happens, especially in custody battles.

[justwatching]

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 3:21 PM, laPapessaGiovanna said:

This is especially important when you consider that the immediate consequence of a guilty verdict is the loss on the defendant part of some important and constitutionally protected rights. 

When people advocate stripping someone of his freedom, subject the person to a forced medical procedure and suspend even the constitutional right to physical integrity, without bothering with a fair process because they are sure that person is a monster and how can you ever defend a monster, then I start worrying and wondering about who is the monster.

I'd like to underline that a trial where the defence did their best and yet the defendant gets convicted gives power and strong credibility to the victim's story declaring it the proved judicial truth. This can give to everyone involved a new start to find healing.

I also don't understand  the insistence in saying: how can a lawyer help a known guilty criminal be acquitted. If you know that your client is guilty and your knowledge is evidence based (if it's not then how the heck do you know?) surely the prosecution knows it too and it's its job to make sure that the jury too knows it. If then the jury chooses to ignore evidence and says that policemen have a right to kill whenever they feel scared then the problem goes far beyond the justice system. Because the system can be fair only if the society that expresses it is fair. And weakening the right to a defence doesn't make for a fairer society quite the contrary. 

This said I think that attorneys who attack the alleged victims with derogatory statements should lose their license. 

 

I have a question about this.  Isn't there attorney-client privilege?  So if the defendant confesses to his/her attorney, but refuses to confess to the court because he/she doesn't want to go to prison, then the prosecution would not be aware of the confession, and unable to make the jury aware of the evidence.  Is that correct?

[Buzzard]

11 minutes ago, justwatching said:

I have a question about this.  Isn't there attorney-client privilege?  So if the defendant confesses to his/her attorney, but refuses to confess to the court because he/she doesn't want to go to prison, then the prosecution would not be aware of the confession, and unable to make the jury aware of the evidence.  Is that correct?

No one is supposed to know what a defendant says to his attorney.  If there is a third party present who is not a part of the defense team then the privilege is waived.  So, if a defendant tells his attorney and only his attorney his side of the story then that attorney is prohibited from sharing what was said with outsiders.  So yes, the prosecution would not be aware of the statement, the defense attorney cannot be called to testify, and the jury never hears about it (unless the defendant testifies).